Cognitive function is associated with prison behaviour among women in prison but not with subjective perception of adjustment to prison
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is considerable evidence that aspects of cognitive function, especially executive function, are associated with antisocial behaviour and violence, but most research to date has measured current cognition and previous criminal behaviour. Furthermore, this research has been conducted almost exclusively with male offenders. AIM: The aim of this study is to examine relationships between a wide range of cognitive functions and behaviours among women in prison. Our hypotheses were that cognitive functioning would be associated with both more-or-less contemporaneously observed behaviour problems and self-rated adjustment to the environment. METHOD: Forty-five drug-free imprisoned female offenders were individually assessed on a battery of cognitive measures. Prison staff rated their behaviour on the Prison Behaviour Rating Scale and the women rated their own sense of adjustment to the environment on the Prison Adjustment Questionnaire. RESULTS: Stepwise hierarchical regressions indicated that attention was independently associated with behaviours reflecting tension, depression, isolation, fear, victimisation and worry, whereas processing speed was independently associated with behaviours reflecting lack of energy, mental slowness and lack of awareness of the surrounding environment and total Prison Adjustment Questionnaire score. There was no relationship between cognitive functioning and subjective perception of adjustment to prison. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE AND FUTURE RESEARCH: Results indicate that cognition contributes to some of the behavioural problems displayed by inmates in the prison context. Future studies should evaluate the role of programmes to improve cognitive processes in also improving prison behaviour and also test for continuities and discontinuities with post-release integrative success.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".